Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Leprosy Case Detection Methods in Northern Nigeria: e1818
Background Despite several leprosy control measures in Nigeria, child proportion and disability grade 2 cases remain high while new cases have not significantly reduced, suggesting continuous spread of the disease. Hence, there is the need to review detection methods to enhance identification of ear...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PLoS neglected tropical diseases 2012-09, Vol.6 (9) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | PLoS neglected tropical diseases |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Ezenduka, Charles Post, Erik John, Steven Suraj, Abdulkarim Namadi, Abdulahi Onwujekwe, Obinna |
description | Background Despite several leprosy control measures in Nigeria, child proportion and disability grade 2 cases remain high while new cases have not significantly reduced, suggesting continuous spread of the disease. Hence, there is the need to review detection methods to enhance identification of early cases for effective control and prevention of permanent disability. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three leprosy case detection methods in Northern Nigeria to identify the most cost-effective approach for detection of leprosy. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the additional benefits of using several case detection methods in addition to routine practice in two north-eastern states of Nigeria. Primary and secondary data were collected from routine practice records and the Nigerian Tuberculosis and Leprosy Control Programme of 2009. The methods evaluated were Rapid Village Survey (RVS), Household Contact Examination (HCE) and Traditional Healers incentive method (TH). Effectiveness was measured as number of new leprosy cases detected and cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per case detected. Costs were measured from both providers' and patients' perspectives. Additional costs and effects of each method were estimated by comparing each method against routine practise and expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were converted to the U.S. dollar at the 2010 exchange rate. Univariate sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate uncertainties around the ICER. Results The ICER for HCE was $142 per additional case detected at all contact levels and it was the most cost-effective method. At ICER of $194 per additional case detected, THs method detected more cases at a lower cost than the RVS, which was not cost-effective at $313 per additional case detected. Sensitivity analysis showed that varying the proportion of shared costs and subsistent wage for valuing unpaid time did not significantly change the results. Conclusion Complementing routine practice with household contact examination is the most cost-effective approach to identify new leprosy cases and we recommend that, depending on acceptability and feasibility, this intervention is introduced for improved case detection in Northern Nigeria. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001818 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1288113717</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2893336801</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_12881137173</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjz0LwkAQRA9R8PMfWCxYJ94mhJylRMVCrQKWEnRjLoQ7vT0F_70RxNpqXjE8ZoSYogwxTnFe24czRRPejL-EUkpUqDpigIs4CaI0Tro_jtK-GDLXUiaLROFAHDPLPliXJZ29fpIhZli2rhdrBltCXjki2NHNWX5BVjDBivynbA3syVf2wqANHKzzFbkW9JWcLsaiVxYN0-SbIzHbrPNsG7Si-4PYn76j-YSRUvj5kcb_td6y9Eq2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1288113717</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Leprosy Case Detection Methods in Northern Nigeria: e1818</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Ezenduka, Charles ; Post, Erik ; John, Steven ; Suraj, Abdulkarim ; Namadi, Abdulahi ; Onwujekwe, Obinna</creator><creatorcontrib>Ezenduka, Charles ; Post, Erik ; John, Steven ; Suraj, Abdulkarim ; Namadi, Abdulahi ; Onwujekwe, Obinna</creatorcontrib><description>Background Despite several leprosy control measures in Nigeria, child proportion and disability grade 2 cases remain high while new cases have not significantly reduced, suggesting continuous spread of the disease. Hence, there is the need to review detection methods to enhance identification of early cases for effective control and prevention of permanent disability. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three leprosy case detection methods in Northern Nigeria to identify the most cost-effective approach for detection of leprosy. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the additional benefits of using several case detection methods in addition to routine practice in two north-eastern states of Nigeria. Primary and secondary data were collected from routine practice records and the Nigerian Tuberculosis and Leprosy Control Programme of 2009. The methods evaluated were Rapid Village Survey (RVS), Household Contact Examination (HCE) and Traditional Healers incentive method (TH). Effectiveness was measured as number of new leprosy cases detected and cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per case detected. Costs were measured from both providers' and patients' perspectives. Additional costs and effects of each method were estimated by comparing each method against routine practise and expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were converted to the U.S. dollar at the 2010 exchange rate. Univariate sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate uncertainties around the ICER. Results The ICER for HCE was $142 per additional case detected at all contact levels and it was the most cost-effective method. At ICER of $194 per additional case detected, THs method detected more cases at a lower cost than the RVS, which was not cost-effective at $313 per additional case detected. Sensitivity analysis showed that varying the proportion of shared costs and subsistent wage for valuing unpaid time did not significantly change the results. Conclusion Complementing routine practice with household contact examination is the most cost-effective approach to identify new leprosy cases and we recommend that, depending on acceptability and feasibility, this intervention is introduced for improved case detection in Northern Nigeria.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1935-2727</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-2735</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001818</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Cost analysis ; Disability ; Disease ; Households ; Leprosy ; Methods ; Sensitivity analysis ; Stigma ; Tropical diseases ; Tuberculosis</subject><ispartof>PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2012-09, Vol.6 (9)</ispartof><rights>Ezenduka et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited: Ezenduka C, Post E, John S, Suraj A, Namadi A, et al. (2012) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Leprosy Case Detection Methods in Northern Nigeria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 6(9): e1818. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001818</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ezenduka, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Post, Erik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>John, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suraj, Abdulkarim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Namadi, Abdulahi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onwujekwe, Obinna</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Leprosy Case Detection Methods in Northern Nigeria: e1818</title><title>PLoS neglected tropical diseases</title><description>Background Despite several leprosy control measures in Nigeria, child proportion and disability grade 2 cases remain high while new cases have not significantly reduced, suggesting continuous spread of the disease. Hence, there is the need to review detection methods to enhance identification of early cases for effective control and prevention of permanent disability. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three leprosy case detection methods in Northern Nigeria to identify the most cost-effective approach for detection of leprosy. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the additional benefits of using several case detection methods in addition to routine practice in two north-eastern states of Nigeria. Primary and secondary data were collected from routine practice records and the Nigerian Tuberculosis and Leprosy Control Programme of 2009. The methods evaluated were Rapid Village Survey (RVS), Household Contact Examination (HCE) and Traditional Healers incentive method (TH). Effectiveness was measured as number of new leprosy cases detected and cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per case detected. Costs were measured from both providers' and patients' perspectives. Additional costs and effects of each method were estimated by comparing each method against routine practise and expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were converted to the U.S. dollar at the 2010 exchange rate. Univariate sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate uncertainties around the ICER. Results The ICER for HCE was $142 per additional case detected at all contact levels and it was the most cost-effective method. At ICER of $194 per additional case detected, THs method detected more cases at a lower cost than the RVS, which was not cost-effective at $313 per additional case detected. Sensitivity analysis showed that varying the proportion of shared costs and subsistent wage for valuing unpaid time did not significantly change the results. Conclusion Complementing routine practice with household contact examination is the most cost-effective approach to identify new leprosy cases and we recommend that, depending on acceptability and feasibility, this intervention is introduced for improved case detection in Northern Nigeria.</description><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Households</subject><subject>Leprosy</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Stigma</subject><subject>Tropical diseases</subject><subject>Tuberculosis</subject><issn>1935-2727</issn><issn>1935-2735</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjz0LwkAQRA9R8PMfWCxYJ94mhJylRMVCrQKWEnRjLoQ7vT0F_70RxNpqXjE8ZoSYogwxTnFe24czRRPejL-EUkpUqDpigIs4CaI0Tro_jtK-GDLXUiaLROFAHDPLPliXJZ29fpIhZli2rhdrBltCXjki2NHNWX5BVjDBivynbA3syVf2wqANHKzzFbkW9JWcLsaiVxYN0-SbIzHbrPNsG7Si-4PYn76j-YSRUvj5kcb_td6y9Eq2</recordid><startdate>20120901</startdate><enddate>20120901</enddate><creator>Ezenduka, Charles</creator><creator>Post, Erik</creator><creator>John, Steven</creator><creator>Suraj, Abdulkarim</creator><creator>Namadi, Abdulahi</creator><creator>Onwujekwe, Obinna</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120901</creationdate><title>Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Leprosy Case Detection Methods in Northern Nigeria</title><author>Ezenduka, Charles ; Post, Erik ; John, Steven ; Suraj, Abdulkarim ; Namadi, Abdulahi ; Onwujekwe, Obinna</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_12881137173</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Households</topic><topic>Leprosy</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Stigma</topic><topic>Tropical diseases</topic><topic>Tuberculosis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ezenduka, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Post, Erik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>John, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suraj, Abdulkarim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Namadi, Abdulahi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onwujekwe, Obinna</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>PLoS neglected tropical diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ezenduka, Charles</au><au>Post, Erik</au><au>John, Steven</au><au>Suraj, Abdulkarim</au><au>Namadi, Abdulahi</au><au>Onwujekwe, Obinna</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Leprosy Case Detection Methods in Northern Nigeria: e1818</atitle><jtitle>PLoS neglected tropical diseases</jtitle><date>2012-09-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>9</issue><issn>1935-2727</issn><eissn>1935-2735</eissn><abstract>Background Despite several leprosy control measures in Nigeria, child proportion and disability grade 2 cases remain high while new cases have not significantly reduced, suggesting continuous spread of the disease. Hence, there is the need to review detection methods to enhance identification of early cases for effective control and prevention of permanent disability. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three leprosy case detection methods in Northern Nigeria to identify the most cost-effective approach for detection of leprosy. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the additional benefits of using several case detection methods in addition to routine practice in two north-eastern states of Nigeria. Primary and secondary data were collected from routine practice records and the Nigerian Tuberculosis and Leprosy Control Programme of 2009. The methods evaluated were Rapid Village Survey (RVS), Household Contact Examination (HCE) and Traditional Healers incentive method (TH). Effectiveness was measured as number of new leprosy cases detected and cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per case detected. Costs were measured from both providers' and patients' perspectives. Additional costs and effects of each method were estimated by comparing each method against routine practise and expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were converted to the U.S. dollar at the 2010 exchange rate. Univariate sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate uncertainties around the ICER. Results The ICER for HCE was $142 per additional case detected at all contact levels and it was the most cost-effective method. At ICER of $194 per additional case detected, THs method detected more cases at a lower cost than the RVS, which was not cost-effective at $313 per additional case detected. Sensitivity analysis showed that varying the proportion of shared costs and subsistent wage for valuing unpaid time did not significantly change the results. Conclusion Complementing routine practice with household contact examination is the most cost-effective approach to identify new leprosy cases and we recommend that, depending on acceptability and feasibility, this intervention is introduced for improved case detection in Northern Nigeria.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><doi>10.1371/journal.pntd.0001818</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1935-2727 |
ispartof | PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2012-09, Vol.6 (9) |
issn | 1935-2727 1935-2735 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1288113717 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Cost analysis Disability Disease Households Leprosy Methods Sensitivity analysis Stigma Tropical diseases Tuberculosis |
title | Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Leprosy Case Detection Methods in Northern Nigeria: e1818 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T08%3A28%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-Effectiveness%20Analysis%20of%20Three%20Leprosy%20Case%20Detection%20Methods%20in%20Northern%20Nigeria:%20e1818&rft.jtitle=PLoS%20neglected%20tropical%20diseases&rft.au=Ezenduka,%20Charles&rft.date=2012-09-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=9&rft.issn=1935-2727&rft.eissn=1935-2735&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001818&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2893336801%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1288113717&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |